[davemp]

> The big tools that won on collaboration (eg. Google Docs) have understood that low-friction sharing is critical to becoming the default choice.

Google docs is a heavily subsidized product and not representative.

Also tool pricing seems hard, but I can’t really get behind saying that a company should bait and switch with their pricing models harder.

[ianstormtaylor]

Under that logic is a free trial a bait and switch? How about a 1-month free deal? How about what Adobe (and many others) do where they license to the school and students get it free until they graduate?

It seems like a really weird point to make, when you could just as easily argue that Figma giving their services for free to students is a gift that levels the playing field, by allowing students without means to gain experience with industry standard tools they might not have been exposed to otherwise.

It’s not zero-sum.

[davemp]

> Under that logic is a free trial a bait and switch? How about a 1-month free deal? How about what Adobe (and many others) do where they license to the school and students get it free until they graduate?

No. The key difference being transparency. You know when signing up for a free trial what the actual long term costs will be and can plan for it.

We might be talking about different things. I was mostly replying to this line from the OP:

> But I think it's part of a larger mistake Figma is making: they seem to have shifted to an extraction mindset too early

I’m not sure if this was just awkward wording that seems to condone these type of strategies.

All these loss leading, vendor lockin strategies have distorted markets heavily. Complex tools cost a lot of money to develop; and if another player is just going to burn piles of cash from elsewhere to undercut you, it becomes a game of capital allocation and not individual product quality/costs. It’s terrible for consumers and a big reason why even common chat apps are barely functional.

[ianstormtaylor]

That's fair. I'm also heavily opposed to VC-funded, market-distorting behaviors and the later extraction-oriented outcomes they produce. In this case I was framing it in terms that might be more widely received by folks who aren't, and pointing out that, even if that was their mindset and goal, they were still making a mistake strategically.

But I appreciate the reminder to not cede ground in wording, thanks.